Week Five: How might conflict be a positive force in changing structures? A negative force?

            Since conflict itself is neutral, it can have either positive or negative results. This is true especially in relation to structures; conflict can lead to the transformation of oppressive and violent structures, or it can lead to the maintenance of the status quo. Because “oppressive social structures” cause “dissatisfaction of basic needs,” which can lead to conflict, the very presence of conflict is often a symptom of a deeper structural problem (155). Already, we are faced with a decision: will conflict be framed positively, as an opportunity to address the underlying structural issue, or will conflict be framed negatively as an inconvenience and interruption to the status quo? Conflict, just like our perceptions of its existence, has the potential to work either positively or negatively. In the work of changing structures, conflict has the potential to “[increase] the adaptation of particular social relationships to new situations,” thus transforming and strengthening the relationships that comprise the structure (157). Of course, conflict also has the potential to cause further alienation and division of social groups within the social structure. In order for conflict to act as a positive force in social structures and relationships, it is important that we name and claim this possibility. Awareness of broken and oppressive social structures is important, but even more critical is awareness of and real belief in the possibility of transformation (161). For if it is true that “people can be free only when they believe in the possibilities for change” (161), then proclaiming and believing that conflict has positive potential is critical if conflict is to transform oppressive social structures into more just ones.

            With all this in mind, it is also “important to note that structural changes may not be easily or immediately achieved” (164). This is because structural change is the work of conflict transformation, which requires long-term commitment (Lederach 33). Conflict resolution, on the other hand, is more concerned with resolving the manifest conflict; as a result, “structural issues are less important” since “the goal is…to maintain or restore harmony” (164). Overall, I am convinced that even though conflict transformation is a more difficult and long-term process, it is also a more holistic and complete one. By using manifest conflict to identify and address structural violence, conflict transformation uses conflict as a positive force for social change.

Week Four: Do you think conflict is mostly caused by personal and situational sources or structural sources?

           It seems to me that conflict is most often caused by structural sources. Rubenstein describes the two main sources of conflict as “human nature” and “structures” (55). Even upon reading those two options for the very first time, I felt myself pushing back against “human nature” as the cause of conflict. Personally, I try to see the best in human nature, and I feel like blaming conflict on the way that people are (or a person is) makes it difficult to envision the possibility of peace in that situation. Rubenstein gave the rather extreme example of Hitler and whether he was an “embodiment of ideological fanaticism and power-lust” or simply “a nationalist leader responding to Great Power competition” (56). These views illustrate the difference between personal and structural sources of conflict— was the problem Hitler himself, or did a set of structural (social, political, economic, etc.) circumstances also contribute? Clearly, this is an extreme case, and it seems that both structural and personal sources of conflict collided with tragic results.

Rubenstein points out that it is easy to see overt conflict as personal (57), which makes sense since manifest conflict is carried out by individuals or groups. However, he also points of the role of structural violence in causing overt violence, saying that “if the level of provocation continues to rise, all but the rarest individuals will give way eventually to aggressive or self-destructive behavior” (57). This provocation, I think, comes from structural sources which deprive people of their needs and humanity (58). While it is easy to point to individuals who act out violently as the cause for that violence, in order to transform the conflict it is necessary to acknowledge and deal with the “institutions that function either as active causes or necessary conditions for outbreaks of violence” (59). These institutions and structures, not human beings, seem to be most consistently at the root of violence.

While human nature does contribute to conflict, I strongly resist the idea that human nature is the cause of conflict. It seems to me that it is the human instinct to survive that plays the greatest role in conflict, not a human instinct to do violence. While this human instinct to survive often leads to violence, this violence is spurred by either physical or structural threats. A human instinct of survival is not in and of itself a negative thing, as would be a human instinct of violence. Thus, by transforming the structures (and situations) that threaten human survival, it is possible to transform conflict and create space for peace to grow.